Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by idmonster

Youre realy showing your ignorance and the truth that you dont read peoples posts. We already had this discussion many, many pages ago.

I patiently explained where the 10% brain myth came from.

You must be ignoring my posts as well as I completly explained how its more than plausible.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I am saying you make stuff up...mostly because you ACTUALLY DO. An example is that silly "target food" you made up...even worse, you created your own little definition for it and claim it's a prerequisite for evolution. As if a MADE UP WORD could debunk a scientific theory. Are we in kindergarden or what?

The made up term was only to help some of those on this thread that might have a problem understanding.

Basically the common sense of it is that all living things will have to have a food source. Now you can't argue with that, if you do then your saying that starving is natural.

The idea of life going on, regardless if you believe in evoluton or creation backfires in your face if the species has to die from starvation.

So I'm sure you will agree all life is supposed to have food.
Now if we magically evolve into a new species, we have a new problem, as we have no food to eat. All of the food on this planet is accounted for and in use. So you either have to step on the toes of another species and cause them to starve, or eat something that you were not meant to.

Its obvious that target food is the proper order of how this is supposed to work, but we don't see it all the time as our planet is not in balance.

So no a silly term may not debunk evolution, but that pesky little common sense of everything needing food does.

PLEASE read the basic Wiki article about evolution, because you STILL don't understand the theory

New species don't just evolve from one generation to the next and require a completely different food source! It's a GRADUAL change during which the continue to eat whatever food they eat. Evolution takes a long time in most species. So there is no such thing as "target food" as you define it....like I said, YOU MADE IT UP

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Youre realy showing your ignorance and the truth that you dont read peoples posts. We already had this discussion many, many pages ago.

I patiently explained where the 10% brain myth came from.

You must be ignoring my posts as well as I completly explained how its more than plausible.

No...you just posted more nonsense that was debunked over and over and over again pages ago

reply to post by MrXYZ

PLEASE read the basic Wiki article about evolution, because you STILL don't understand the theory

New species don't just evolve from one generation to the next and require a completely different food source! It's a GRADUAL change during which the continue to eat whatever food they eat. Evolution takes a long time in most species. So there is no such thing as "target food" as you define it....like I said, YOU MADE IT UP

Different species don't eat the same food as another, thats a crock, that would mean they are the same species.

reply to post by MrXYZ

No...you just posted more nonsense that was debunked over and over and over again pages ago

No one ever debunked the fact that a savant proves our brains can opperate at a higher capacity. Who debunked that and when?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

PLEASE read the basic Wiki article about evolution, because you STILL don't understand the theory

New species don't just evolve from one generation to the next and require a completely different food source! It's a GRADUAL change during which the continue to eat whatever food they eat. Evolution takes a long time in most species. So there is no such thing as "target food" as you define it....like I said, YOU MADE IT UP

Different species don't eat the same food as another, thats a crock, that would mean they are the same species.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

New made up definition.

Tooth defines a species by what they eat.

You complete ignoramus, The food a living entity eats does not define its status a species.

Once again this has been explained to you time and time again. Species are defined as the same of different by whether or not they can breed and produce viable offspring.

And dont start that idiotic nonsesnse about whather they choos to breed or not, that is a totaly riduclous argument.

At least now we can see exactly where you ignorance stems from. The totaly deluded belief that a species is defined by its food source.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No...you just posted more nonsense that was debunked over and over and over again pages ago

No one ever debunked the fact that a savant proves our brains can opperate at a higher capacity. Who debunked that and when?

Everybody who replied to your rantings about 200 pages ago. Now either go back an re-read, or drop it. Its another debate you lost. Get over it.

reply to post by idmonster

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

New made up definition.

Tooth defines a species by what they eat.

You complete ignoramus, The food a living entity eats does not define its status a species

Of course it does, not that the food decides, but that each species requires a different diet. You are what you eat.

Once again this has been explained to you time and time again. Species are defined as the same of different by whether or not they can breed and produce viable offspring.

And I pretty much agree with that except the part where failure of being able to breed may not prove to be a different species. So its false.

At least now we can see exactly where you ignorance stems from. The totaly deluded belief that a species is defined by its food source.

Well the food source doesn't determine the species, and the species doesn't determine the food source, its pre-determined which is why your wrong when you say that an evolving species will just eat the same food. This would indicate that ALL species shall eat the same food which is false, at least if your going by evolution anyhow.

If an evolving species found himself having to eat the same food he ate as a prior species then he is surley headed for extinction. You false assumption would imply that birds and reptiles should be eating he same things, but they don't. It would also claim that humans and apes should be eating the same foods but we don't.

Your wrong.

reply to post by idmonster

Everybody who replied to your rantings about 200 pages ago. Now either go back an re-read, or drop it. Its another debate you lost. Get over it.

The only comments I remember were about how savants usually also have a disability to go along with there gift, so it was looked at as a balance issue.

Which first of all was a poor missguided assumption and second they totally missed the section in the article that clearly explained that on a rare occasion you will have a savant with the gift but no disability. So right there its plausible. The brain can work better with no disability or trade off.

So your wrong.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Then why are we never able to find any missing links to connect two species together. Why are we never seeing new species emerge, why are we never seeing the changes under a microscope.

Every time a scientist finds a "missing link", there are two more missing links waiting to be found. See the problem? Missing links aren't a scientific concern, because differential reproduction acts on a continuum, its a media creation that is founded on a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is. Similar to how you view evolution. Missing links aren't part of evolution.

Name any species, and more than likely we have a smooth gradient of fossils leading to their current state. Humans/Primates more so than most animals, fortunately.

We do see changes under a microscope, as has been mentioned many times. This is evolution. Take the children of two rabbits, look at their nucleotides under a microscope, and you can see the differences and track form what parent each offspring got that specific chain of nucleotides from. Species take millions of years to evolve. Nobody will never witness a human turning into a different species. That's not the theory of evolution, that is another idea entirely, obviously not based on evidence

The only thing that has been witnessed is some specieation in some aquatic life, some bacteria and some viruses, which doesn't account for all the other life that is supposedly evolving as well.

What future animal will a rabbit turn into? The immediate observation of speciation is only applicable to micro-organisms, because again it takes hundreds of thousands of generations for a new species to be defined, and they are defined retroactively, and somewhat arbitrarily. Its a continuum from one life form to another. A species only describes life forms that reproduce freely in the wild. Lay out every single organism from the first living cell (which itself is an arbitrary distinction, because its a continuum all the way back to a carbon molecule), and one step will look virtually identical to the next. In other words, to a first approximation, we look like yeast.

Why are we never able to pin point a breaking point in a species that determines when and what new species branched off.

We aren't able to predict changes, we aren't able to track them, it really sound more like a big magic show to me.

We are able to predict changes and track them, with very high precision. I'm assuming changes here refers to a timeframe of an organisms and their immediate generations' life cycle. Obviously we can't track changes thousands of years into the future, because that's thousands of years into the future. Mutations are random, environmental conditions are random.

And we have a very detailed phylogentic tree of ancestry. A very very very detailed tree, that describes breaking points and exactly when new species branched off. Again these are defined retroactively, its a continuum. Unfortunately, those that do not study it or make any effort to do any research of any kind see marks of distinction drawn on a chart and think "how could a shrew give birth to a monkey?" For the tenth time, this is not evolution, nor has it ever been anywhere close to resembling the theory of evolution. Its another idea entirely, and ironically more closely resembles a creation myth (zap, new animal)

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Of course it does, not that the food decides, but that each species requires a different diet. You are what you eat.

Then I suggest you stop eating the "stupid berries". Like "target food" you have invented a totaly spurious definition. The diet does not,never has and never will form any part of the definition of a species. Stop being so idiotic

And I pretty much agree with that except the part where failure of being able to breed may not prove to be a different species. So its false.

Remove the mechanics of sex for a moment and allow this to sink in. A great dane is physically incapable of mating with a shiatzu. This does not make them different species. A shiatzu would be incapable of carrying to term the offspring of the great dane. This does not make them different species. The thing that defines different species is if, regardless of the mechanics, the sperm could fertalise the egg and begin gestation.

Well the food source doesn't determine the species, and the species doesn't determine the food source, its pre-determined which is why your wrong when you say that an evolving species will just eat the same food. This would indicate that ALL species shall eat the same food which is false, at least if your going by evolution anyhow.

It would not indicate that at all, show your evidence that that would be the case of get of the podium.

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the world you live in.

reply to post by uva3021

Every time a scientist finds a "missing link", there are two more missing links waiting to be found. See the problem? Missing links aren't a scientific concern, because differential reproduction acts on a continuum, its a media creation that is founded on a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is. Similar to how you view evolution. Missing links aren't part of evolution.

They are if you want to prove relation through evolution. Just saying that it was replaced by the term common ancestor simply means that you know you will never have such proof, but you maintain we are evolving.

Name any species, and more than likely we have a smooth gradient of fossils leading to their current state. Humans/Primates more so than most animals, fortunately.

If you read the stats on those, you will see that they are a precieved relation, hell for all we know they are aliens from another planet.

We do see changes under a microscope, as has been mentioned many times. This is evolution. Take the children of two rabbits, look at their nucleotides under a microscope, and you can see the differences and track form what parent each offspring got that specific chain of nucleotides from. Species take millions of years to evolve. Nobody will never witness a human turning into a different species. That's not the theory of evolution, that is another idea entirely, obviously not based on evidence

So now your admitting to everything that I have also read, its never been witnessed, so how is an assumption made that it exists?

What future animal will a rabbit turn into? The immediate observation of speciation is only applicable to micro-organisms, because again it takes hundreds of thousands of generations for a new species to be defined, and they are defined retroactively, and somewhat arbitrarily. Its a continuum from one life form to another. A species only describes life forms that reproduce freely in the wild. Lay out every single organism from the first living cell (which itself is an arbitrary distinction, because its a continuum all the way back to a carbon molecule), and one step will look virtually identical to the next. In other words, to a first approximation, we look like yeast.

I disagree because if specieation is proof of evolution, and its the ONLY thing that I'm claiming is real at this point, how does it leap to our species, and how do we know that it continues after small changes?

We are able to predict changes and track them, with very high precision. I'm assuming changes here refers to a timeframe of an organisms and their immediate generations' life cycle. Obviously we can't track changes thousands of years into the future, because that's thousands of years into the future. Mutations are random, environmental conditions are random.

If this were true we would not only know what we evolved from but what we are evolving into.

nd we have a very detailed phylogentic tree of ancestry. A very very very detailed tree, that describes breaking points and exactly when new species branched off. Again these are defined retroactively, its a continuum. Unfortunately, those that do not study it or make any effort to do any research of any kind see marks of distinction drawn on a chart and think "how could a shrew give birth to a monkey?" For the tenth time, this is not evolution, nor has it ever been anywhere close to resembling the theory of evolution. Its another idea entirely, and ironically more closely resembles a creation myth (zap, new animal)

But none of this has ever been proven to connect anything to anything else. There is speculation and conjecture but thats as far as it goes. Again, no missing link, only common ancestors, which is just another way of saying we would never have proof tieing us to anything else.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
They are if you want to prove relation through evolution. Just saying that it was replaced by the term common ancestor simply means that you know you will never have such proof, but you maintain we are evolving.

This statement makes zero sense. We are evolving, like I said, as long as there is variation in nucleotides between one individual and another individual

If you read the stats on those, you will see that they are a precieved relation, hell for all we know they are aliens from another planet.

This is impossible to respond to. You want there to be no fossils, but there are, so you just say "but still they aren't good ones." What are you, four?

So now your admitting to everything that I have also read, its never been witnessed, so how is an assumption made that it exists?

We can make the "assumption" because of the molecular and osteological relationships that prove without question common ancestry. Unless someone finds a mechanism that kicks in at a certain point of change ("hold on their ant, you've changed enough now, stop changing or die, zap"). So again, your inquiry is absurd. What are you, four?

I disagree because if specieation is proof of evolution, and its the ONLY thing that I'm claiming is real at this point, how does it leap to our species, and how do we know that it continues after small changes?

Tell us what animal a rabbit will turn into.

You've set impossible standards to prove evolution, or any theory for that matter. How to we know nucleotides will mutate in the future? Well, again, we only know because it happened in the past, but this is exactly the same thing as saying "how do we know electrons will orbit a nucleus in the future?" Or "how do we know the earth will orbit the sun in the future?" This is a silly question, and its almost impossible to respond to.

If this were true we would not only know what we evolved from but what we are evolving into.

We know exactly what we evolved from, its laid out pretty clear to anybody who wants to do a google search, or just read any post not authored by "itsthetooth" from the last 457 pages of this thread.

What future animal will a rabbit turn into?

But none of this has ever been proven to connect anything to anything else. There is speculation and conjecture but thats as far as it goes. Again, no missing link, only common ancestors, which is just another way of saying we would never have proof tieing us to anything else.

Theoretically, its pure conjecture that the universe will go on existing over the next 10 seconds, or when I jump I will return back to the ground. So yes, you are right. All of this, assuming nucleotides mutate and organisms go on reproducing, assuming space is bent and photons hit our eyes, its all conjecture. You are right.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

PLEASE read the basic Wiki article about evolution, because you STILL don't understand the theory

New species don't just evolve from one generation to the next and require a completely different food source! It's a GRADUAL change during which the continue to eat whatever food they eat. Evolution takes a long time in most species. So there is no such thing as "target food" as you define it....like I said, YOU MADE IT UP

Different species don't eat the same food as another, thats a crock, that would mean they are the same species.

I eat fish...sharks eat fish...the SAME FOOD!!

So in your little fantasy world, and according to your understanding of evolution, sharks and humans are the same species because we eat the same food.

Again, READ THE DAMN WIKI ARTICLE if you care about not looking like a complete fool

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No...you just posted more nonsense that was debunked over and over and over again pages ago

No one ever debunked the fact that a savant proves our brains can opperate at a higher capacity. Who debunked that and when?

Yes, and savant also have often major deficiencies that come along with having ONE special talent. So yes, some can count incredibly well...but on the downside can barely talk. Others are blind but can recite music just after hearing a song once. But in all those cases they also have major issues with their brains.

Some have less prominent issues of course....

Either way, their brains aren't "operating at a higher capacity", they just have one aspect that's special...while others might suffer at the same time.

So just more bull# from you

50% of savants have autism; the other 50% often have psychological disorders or mental illnesses.

LINK

reply to post by uva3021

This statement makes zero sense. We are evolving, like I said, as long as there is variation in nucleotides between one individual and another individual

Now since they aren't able to look at those changes and indicate for example that these changes were made by evolution and these changes were made by ADHD, how do they know its evolution.

This is impossible to respond to. You want there to be no fossils, but there are, so you just say "but still they aren't good ones." What are you, four?

Fossils don't prove relation, fniding close ties in DNA does, and I haven't seen any fossils that they indicate do.

We can make the "assumption" because of the molecular and osteological relationships that prove without question common ancestry. Unless someone finds a mechanism that kicks in at a certain point of change ("hold on their ant, you've changed enough now, stop changing or die, zap"). So again, your inquiry is absurd. What are you, four?

Molecular and osteological observations don't prove relationships. Again assumptions are being made that these observations prove relation when there is other alternatives that could explain diversity. You cant make assumptions untill those are ruled out and just choosing to not believe in them doesn't mean they go away either.

You've set impossible standards to prove evolution, or any theory for that matter. How to we know nucleotides will mutate in the future? Well, again, we only know because it happened in the past, but this is exactly the same thing as saying "how do we know electrons will orbit a nucleus in the future?" Or "how do we know the earth will orbit the sun in the future?" This is a silly question, and its almost impossible to respond to.

. Now your acting like your four, by comparing a totaly random act of evolution to something that is predictable like the earth in orbit around the sun.

We know exactly what we evolved from, its laid out pretty clear to anybody who wants to do a google search, or just read any post not authored by "itsthetooth" from the last 457 pages of this thread.

Well you never answered so I'm going to assume its apes. There has never been any conclusive evidence that has proven we evolved from apes, this is why we share a common ancestor, right? The problem is that we share zero evidence with them, and have no connection what so ever. We don't look like them aside from the fact that they are humanoid in feature. Had we of evolved from them, we would have plenty of fossils that are inbetween us and them, and we don't. We would have some shared lifestyles with them, like living outside for starters, and we don't. We would have had shared life experiences like some shared language, and we don't. The fact is we have nothing with them. They are the poorest example of proof of evolution.

What future animal will a rabbit turn into?

A cabbit.

Thats a pretty good brain storm as hunting for species that have no gametic isolation is very interesting, and the cabbit is real.

Theoretically, its pure conjecture that the universe will go on existing over the next 10 seconds, or when I jump I will return back to the ground. So yes, you are right. All of this, assuming nucleotides mutate and organisms go on reproducing, assuming space is bent and photons hit our eyes, its all conjecture. You are right.

The theories your comparing have nothing to do with each other, bad example.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I eat fish...sharks eat fish...the SAME FOOD!!

So all you ever eat is fish, I don't buy that. All that a shark eats is not fish, I know this for a fact.

So in your little fantasy world, and according to your understanding of evolution, sharks and humans are the same species because we eat the same food

Only if that were all that you both ate, ya.

Again, READ THE DAMN WIKI ARTICLE if you care about not looking like a complete fool

How can you claim I'm looking like a fool when your making assumptions like you are.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, and savant also have often major deficiencies that come along with having ONE special talent. So yes, some can count incredibly well...but on the downside can barely talk. Others are blind but can recite music just after hearing a song once. But in all those cases they also have major issues with their brains.

And again your wrong. You totally missed the fact that on a rare occasion, they have no disability.

Prodigious savantsSee also: Historical figures sometimes considered autistic
A prodigious savant is someone whose skill level would qualify him or her as a prodigy, or exceptional talent, even in the absence of a cognitive disability. Prodigious savants are those individuals whose abilities would be considered phenomenal or genius even in a person without any limitations or special diagnosis of impairment. The most common trait of these prodigious savants is their seemingly limitless mnemonic skills, with many having eidetic or photographic memories. Indeed, prodigious savants are extremely rare, with fewer than one hundred noted in more than a century of literature on the subject. Treffert, the leading researcher in the study of savant syndrome, estimates that fewer than fifty or so such individuals are believed to be alive in the world today. The website of the Wisconsin Medical Society lists 29 savant profiles.[9] Darold Treffert is past-president of the society

en.wikipedia.org...

So a prodigious savant has no disability, so your understanding is incorrect. Again, savants DONT have to have a disibility. So again, I am correct, the brain is capable of working better, and a prodigious savant proves it.

Some have less prominent issues of course....

Either way, their brains aren't "operating at a higher capacity", they just have one aspect that's special...while others might suffer at the same time.

So just more bull# from you




50% of savants have autism; the other 50% often have psychological disorders or mental illnesses.



LINK

No bull here, just stomping out illiteracy. The sad part is that I allready explained this. Prodigious Savants prove that our brains are NOT working to their best capacity.

reply to post by itsthetooth


OMG tooth, I don't think you realize what a fool you make yourself in this thread

Yes, both sharks and humans have more than one food source, and that's 100% NATURAL. Believe it or not, beings will often have a choice of more than one food source

reply to post by itsthetooth

Fossils don't prove relation, fniding close ties in DNA does, and I haven't seen any fossils that they indicate do.

YES YOU HAVE...WHY ARE YOU BEING SO DISHONEST?

This will be the forth time posting this information! Good gawd how many times do I need to post this? This data is freely available without passwords.

ENTIRE GENOME OF EXTINCT HUMAN DECODED FROM FOSSIL

Also...

DNA EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT INTERBREEDING